It is important that we review modern philosophies of science since they have served to set the rules for how psychologists have thought about their research for the past 80 years. In other words, if we want to understand what psychologists think they are doing when they carry out scientific research we need to understand their philosophies of science. However, as we shall see there are many different models of the scientific endeavour apart from those that most psychologists use. The evolution of ideas about how to do science indicates that some psychological research is still stuck in an earlier framework which has been supplanted by more recent and arguably more challenging and liberating models of how to carry out empirical investigations.

What is the ‘philosophy of science’?

Philosophies of science are ultimately concerned with the question of how we should carry out scientific research given our understanding of the nature of knowledge. Originally, philosophers of science sought to explain how science should be conducted by looking at successful scientists such as Einstein. More recently though the philosophy of science has moved on to consider how most scientists actually work given the social and practical circumstances of their work.

Reality, Knowledge and Science

We all have questions about the world around us. What is real and what is fiction? What do we know and how do we know it? How can we find out more about the world? Philosophers analyse these questions intensively. They are interested in the relation between ontology (the study of what actually exists), epistemology (the study of what knowledge is, what we can know and what the limits of knowledge are) and methodology (the study of the ways in which the world can be studied).

It should go without saying that the kinds of assumption we make about what exists affects what we consider we can know about it. which in turn affects how we think it is best to study it. Thus our ontological assumptions affect our epistemological assumptions, which in turn affect our methodological assumptions. For this reason we cannot really pick a methodology arbitrarily since each methodology brings with it epistemological and ontological assumptions. Which is why psychoanalysts use couches rather than microscopes, and why behaviourists use Skinner boxes rather than questionnaires. Many philosophers have tried to clarify possibilities and limitations of science in terms of ontology, epistemology and methodology and it is worth looking at some of the more influential ideas and considering their implications for psychology. This is the area of the philosophy of science and we need now to review it.

What is the point of looking at the philosophy of science? How is it relevant to Psychology?

It is useful to acquaint ourselves with the philosophy of science for several reasons. First, we can see what a can of worms a question like ‘is psychology a science?’ really opens. There are many different definitions about what counts as science and psychology meets the criteria for some of these, but not others. Second, when we come to consider forms of psychology carried out outside of the traditional logical positivist mode, we can think more clearly about ways of evaluating those theories and studies if we have a more flexible idea of what science might entail a film porno. When we come later to review qualitative research we will see that we have to be so flexible that we might need to rethink our ideas about ‘science’ altogether.

Well presented, not too long CV. (the paper used to be of good quality. photocopies always can be easily distinguished and can be picked out easily. It is advisable to use a folder and white envelopes to make the CV well `sent’.
A systematic but well categorized CV. for eg. Separate pages for personal details, work experience, information about each job previously done, including the non-paediatric bits, hobbies and aims.
More stress on the paediatric experience in UK. If post graduation done abroad, to mention only basic experience. (Over-experience can be a negative point for a training post)
Be precise and short in writing about job experience, if possible in point form.
Be sure to mention any distinctions, prizes and special academic/ non-academic performances, for eg. Participation in inter college/ state / national level activities.
References should be ideally from UK. Can be from the guide under whom you have done the post graduation. Always mention the address, phone and fax no for the panel to get in touch with the referees as easily as possible. (Most candidates are short listed prior to interview after the references are received.)
Previous experience:

For a MBBS graduate with no paediatrics done before, it is advisable to do at least a clinical attachment in UK. This helps in knowing the system well and to improve communication skills. This is especially useful in the field of neonatology.

For postgraduates (MD/DCH) it would be good to have a clinical attachment in UK on the CV. it is easier for you to get subspecialties than a fresh graduate. So if you desire experience in a particular field like endocrine, and you have already worked in it for a considerable period it would be a positive point

Clinical attachments:

A clinical observer post is a non-paid post and is recommended to do it in hospitals recognized by the royal college. There are many options but it is becoming increasingly difficult to get these posts and hence I would not be too fussy about the place. An attachment in a teaching hospital looks good on the CV and the referees may be more familiar. Also there can be a chance to do research / audit / presentation as an observer. However getting the job in a teaching hospital is more difficult especially if it is your first job.

The observer post in a district general hospital is easier and better in terms of getting the experience of common conditions and has a better job prospects. As a first time employee it is always better to start in a DGH for 6 months and then go on to rotations (which includes teaching hospitals) but it is not impossible to get rotations straight away as well. As I do know many overseas colleagues who have been lucky.

I found it useful and encouraging to do as many presentations as possible as an observer. This boosts your communication skills and helps your reading. Sometimes you are assigned topics and sometimes you have to make an active effort to express your wish to do so. This helps your references as well.

Audit s is an important part of training in UK and a SHO in his posting is expected to participate in at least I in 6 months.

Research and publications are strong points to get a job but more useful for registrar/ jobs in teaching hospitals, but not having them is not harmful and I think it is a matter of luck and time to do one before you get into employment.

Exams

It is advisable to have MRCPCH1 before applying for the job. It is easier to finish this exam as soon as passing PLAB or when you are a clinical observer.

Having a MD / DCH need not be a negative point always and some jobs advertised actually prefer candidates with reasonable experience.

Interviews

The general appearance of the candidate is very important and the panel does make judgments about the personality from the body language and the confidence in answering questions.

It is not necessary to know / read paediatrics before the interview as many of the candidates may be house officers and doing their 1st paediatric posting. The interview is always in a very informal manner and the panel always try to make the candidate at home as much as possible. Its better to be honest in answering about topics especially if you do not know rather than building up stories. The level of knowledge expected is nothing more than a MBBS graduates and importance is given to how much of senior help you would take in clinical scenarios. You are never expected to make major decisions and it is good assurance to the panel if you prefer to call your senior in the slightest doubt rather than handling things yourself.

Commonly asked questions include details about the CV, the job experience, exams, carrier goals and the favourite … why you have chosen this field. Most of us practice these answers and it is good to come out with practical reasons like I like this filed because I had an experience and that taught me/ I think it is challenging rather than I want to serve this community and so on.

The other questions are on audits, clinical governance, some clinical scenarios (especially dealing with social problems/ emergencies) and finally where do you see yourself in 10 years time. You will also be asked about preference in specialties and honestly I think it is good to be neutral at the 1-st interview in answering that question. Also you will be asked your negative and positive points and why you think you should get this job. I think this really decides your final impression and it is extremely important to be positive and confidant but avoiding miraculous assumptions.

Courses to attend

MRCPCH 1 is a criterion for. The courses are conducted by hospitals but are expensive and you will have to pay if you are not employed in that hospital. For this exam it is important to concentrate on solving as many questions as possible rather than reading big textbooks diabetes from page 1. The mcq books need not be purchased and is easily available at hospital libraries. The result depends on the total percentage of the candidates to be passed in than exam and hence it is difficult to predict the lowest passing score.

APLS / PALS these are paediatric life support courses and are not the requirements for a job and they cost a lot. It is advisable to do these once you are employed, but if you get an opportunity to do it give s you an extra point on your CV.

1. Ultrasound with a follow-up study between 5 and 7 days, after the initial test, makes a bad outcome in patients with potential DVTs very unlikely. Much of this risk relates to the prevalence of the condition.

2. If there is high suspicion of a clot as a result of known predisposing factors then the diagnosis needs to be pursued with more vigor.

The Method/Evidence:

Consecutive outpatients were determined to have a normal or abnormal scan.

If abnormal the patients had a venogram, and if this was not done, they were started on heparin.

If the scan was normal, it was repeated 5 to 7 days later.

End points were death, or thromboembolic event.

Exclusions: if compression ultrasonography could not be done or there were technical limitations, follow-up was not assured, the patient had received therapeutic doses of heparin for more than 24 hours, or if the patient was pregnant.

Patients were followed up to 3 months after initial contact.

The negative likelihood ratio of no bad outcome after two negative tests is 2/6 divided by 333/397=0.397

Comments:

1. Although this article did not address sensitivities and specificities, since a gold standard was not used for all patients, it did address a more important issue. What is the chance of having a bad event if your scans are negative? The answer looks like it’s very low. The reason it’s low is that the prevalence is low. This is why although the numbers look impressive the calculated likelihood ratios are not that impressive.

2. The researchers intentionally did not include a gold standard for negative tests because they wanted to see what the long term results would be if the patients were not treated. If they had obtained a venogram which showed clot it probably would have been unethical to withhold treatment. Unfortunately it is difficult to know if patients did well because the chances of a bad outcome were so low to start or for another reason.

3. The study probably needed more patients so that there were more events.

4. Although I would feel comfortable withholding heparin for a normal person, if your suspicion for clot is high secondary to known predisposing factors, eg cancer, lupus…, then you probably need to pursue the diagnosis more.

5. The study is actually good, but it depends on the prevalence of the disease.

Sectoral Operational Programme: Improvement of the Competitiveness of Enterprises

The SOP-ICE objective is improvement of competitiveness of enterprises established in Poland, operating in the European Single Market. Improvement of the competitive position of enterprises will strengthen the competitiveness of the economy, defined as the long-term ability of an open, market economy, which is becoming part of the Single European Market, to withstand international competition (on the domestic, the EU and the third countries markets), as well as an ability to adapt effectively to the changing international environment and to achieve a sustainable economic growth. This should bridge the gap in the economic, social and technological spheres between Poland and more developed economies of the EU Member States

Who may get it?
little and medium Hi-Tech Bussines Firms,
firms investing in a environment protection,
firms making new investments,
R&D; Institutions.

POLISH HI-TECH ON THE VERGE OF BREAK THROUGH

In April, the Minister of Scientific Research and Information Technology (Ministerstwo Nauki i Informatyzacji) has announced the results of the contest for the Hi-Tech R&D; projects elaborated by different consortiums of Polish companies (mainly hi-tech start-ups) and research teams. 19 of them ,who were chosen due to interesting and innovative research projects, were given honorable status of Hi-Tech R&D; Centers. Centers with the best designs will be given 40 million EUR to carry on with their study. This is the crucial moment in Polish Biotechnology Research. We hope that this money injection will allow further industry development and will be a landmark especially for hi-tech start-ups. Hi-Tech R&D; Centers will need to propose their projects and suitable forms to the Market &Economy; Research Department (Departament Badan na Rzecz Gospodarki). According to the Minister of Scientific Research and Information Technology (Ministerstwo Nauki i Informatyzacji) the deadline will be given not before end of September.

Environmental Microbiology and Biotechnology

The drastic rise in the use of non-biodegradable plastic materials, during the past three decades, has not been accompanied by a corresponding development of procedures for the safe disposal or degradation of these polymers. As a consequence, plastic wastes accumulating in the environment are posing an ever increasing ecological threat. The most problematic plastic, in this regard, is probably polyethylene, which- being resistant to microbial attack – is one of the most inert synthetic polymers. We have isolated several unique soil bacteria that can utilize polyethylene films as a sole carbon source resulting in partial degradation. These bacteria colonize the polyethylene surface forming a biofilm. Cell hydrophobicity of these bacteria was found to be an important factor in the formation of biofilm on the polyethylene surface and consequently enhances biodegradation of the polymer.

Future research goals include: Studying the mechanism involved in the biodegradation; Identifying the factors involved in the formation of the biofilm on the plastic surfaces; and studying the role of the biofilm in the biodegradation.

Potential collaborators – Microbiologists, Chemical Engineers or Chemists with interest in this research.

The Potential is Real – The Confusion is Overwhelming – The Passion is Blinding. So What do we do? Is sticking our heads in the sand of ignorance the right approach?

We wanted to explore what is going on in the intellectual property front of the embryonic stem cell landscape. This will provide insight into what the research and business enterprises focus in. it will shed light on directions, possibilities, and actualities.